<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_413"
                     title="ICAO: In Obesity, Fat Legs Better than Fat Middles (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Obesity/tb/18322?impressionId=1265813198527"
                     
      Having less abdominal fat but more leg fat may play a role in maintaining metabolic health in obese women, but not in heavy men, researchers found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Metabolically healthy obese women had significantly more leg fat compared with metabolically unfit women, and smaller waist circumference (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05), Sarah Appleton, a postgraduate student at the University of Adelaide in Australia, and colleagues reported at the International Congress on Abdominal Obesity in Hong Kong.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;When there&apos;s no significant differences in total body fat, the high levels of leg fat but low levels of central fat &quot;makes you think this is a protective factor against developing metabolic complications of their obesity, including diabetes,&quot; Appleton told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Smaller studies have shown that metabolically healthy obese patients have less visceral fat compared with insulin-resistant obese patients, suggesting these may be protective factors that limit the development of metabolic disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, normal-weight patients with cardiometabolic risk factors, who are labeled as &quot;metabolically obese,&quot; have higher abdominal adiposity compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight patients. They&apos;re also at increased risk for diabetes and heart disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To examine the relationship, the researchers conducted dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans of body composition in 1,604 patients who were over age 50 and participated in the North West Adelaide Health Study. They were stratified in four categories: metabolically obese normal-weight, metabolically healthy normal weight, metabolically healthy obese, and metabolically unfit obese.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Metabolic obesity was defined by having two or more metabolic risk factors including high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, or diabetes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also measured waist circumference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They found that among normal-weight women, the metabolically obese had significantly more total fat and more trunk fat compared with those who were metabolically healthy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05). There were no differences in waist circumference or lean mass.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among obese women, the metabolically healthy had no significant differences in total body fat, compared with the metabolically unfit. But they had significantly more leg fat, a smaller waist circumference, and the same amounts of lean mass.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We would have expected to see that metabolically healthy obese ladies would have more leg fat, but also more lean mass and less central fat, since this combination is protective against developing diabetes,&quot; Appleton said, &quot;but we didn&apos;t see that related to lean mass, which was surprising.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Normal-weight men who had metabolic problems had significantly more total fat and trunk (chest and abdominal) fat than metabolically healthy ones, but no differences in lean mass.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And for obese men, there were no significant differences between the metabolically fit and unfit, which &quot;was a surprise,&quot; Appleton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Men generally have much less fat and more lean mass,&quot; she added. &quot;Women are the other way around, so maybe it&apos;s not so surprising to see these effects specifically in women.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers did find that among all overweight patients, both male and female, metabolic health was associated with significantly lower waist circumference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We know specifically that fat around the abdomen is dangerous because it can drain into your blood very easily and have direct effects on organs including the liver and pancreas,&quot; Appleton said. &quot;The theory is that distribution of fat and maybe an alternative inflammatory profile protects obese ladies from developing the metabolic consequences you&apos;d expect to see in people who are obese.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Appleton said the study may have implications for clinical practice, adding that physicians should assess both BMI and waist circumference to determine disease risk. Moreover, physicians &quot;need to focus on healthy weight loss in a way that protects lean mass but also reduces dangerous fat deposits including central adiposity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It also goes to show that &quot;just because somebody looks thin,&quot; Appleton added, &quot;doesn&apos;t mean they&apos;re healthy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_376"
                     title="Stress of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis May Be Deadly (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ProstateCancer/tb/18268?impressionId=1265813198527"
                     
      Men have a slightly, but statistically significant, increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease in the year after learning they have prostate cancer, researchers found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The risk was greatest in the first month after diagnosis (standardized mortality ratio 2.05, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.22), Lorelei Mucci, PhD, of Brigham and Women&apos;s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reported online in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the National Cancer Institute&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The study, which covered diagnoses made from 1979 through 2004, also found an overall increased risk of suicide in the year following a prostate cancer diagnosis (SMR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.6), although the association was not significant after screening for prostate specific antigen (PSA) became widespread.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The findings&lt;em&gt;&lt;/em&gt; are &quot;one additional piece in weighing the pros and cons of PSA screening,&quot; Mucci said in an interview.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;She also said that, &quot;not only do [clinicians] need to be treating the cancer, but they need to be thinking about the social support and other support that men may need to deal with this stressful event.&quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A previous study by Mucci&apos;s group that looked at a Swedish population found similarly increased risks of suicide and cardiovascular death following a prostate cancer diagnosis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because PSA testing is more extensive in the U.S., increasing the number of early-stage and indolent cancers detected, the researchers wanted to see whether the results would carry over.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, they looked at data from 342,497 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1979 through 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number of diagnoses steadily increased throughout the study period  --  from 6,106 in 1979 to 17,688 in 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the percentage of cancers that were metastatic dropped from 18.2% in the pre-PSA period (1979 to 1986) to 5% in the period of widespread testing (1993 to 2004).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the study, 148 men committed suicide within one year of learning their diagnosis, higher than the 105.2 that would be expected in the general U.S. male population.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The elevated risk was only evident prior to 1993, when PSA testing became more widely used. The authors suggested that this was likely because of the potentially lower degree of stress associated with the diagnosis of indolent prostate cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;So that&apos;s reassuring,&quot; Mucci said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, another 6,845 men died of cardiovascular disease, which was also higher than the expected 6,282.9.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Contrary to the findings regarding suicide, the risk of cardiovascular death in the first month after hearing a diagnosis was significantly increased throughout the study period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prostate cancer patients who were not married at the time of diagnosis had higher relative risks of both suicide and cardiovascular death than married patients.The authors suggested that this may be because &quot;having someone close to confide in might alleviate the psychological stress experienced from receiving a cancer diagnosis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also observed a clear trend between higher relative risks for suicide and cardiovascular death among patients diagnosed with a metastatic tumor, which clearly would be more stressful than diagnosis of a clinically localized tumor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This finding might further explain the decreasing excess risks that have been observed in the PSA era, in which the proportion of advanced tumors was small (i.e., 18.2% metastatic tumors in the pre-PSA era and 5.0% in the PSA era),&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Risk of cardiovascular death was magnified for patients with metastatic tumors (SMR 3.22, 95% CI 2.68 to 3.84) compared with those with local or regional tumors (SMR 1.57, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.74)(&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prostate cancer patients who were not married at the time of diagnosis had higher relative risks of both suicide and cardiovascular death than married patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors acknowledged some limitations of the study, including the lack of a cancer-free group as reference and the lack of information on physical or mental health status, other prevalent disorders or comorbid illness at diagnosis, and prostate cancer treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study received funding from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_364"
                     title="ADT for Prostate Cancer Raises Heart Risks"
                     score="0.009"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Urology/ProstateCancer/tb/18250?impressionId=1265813198527"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer can exacerbate cardiac risk factors and may increase the risk of heart attack and cardiac death, according to an advisory supported by four medical organizations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the groups did not offer specific guidelines for clinicians on when to employ ADT therapy or avoid it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clinical trials have shown that ADT increases body weight, decreases lean mass and increases fat mass, reduces insulin sensitivity, and triggers or worsens dyslipidemia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several studies have demonstrated a significant increase in cardiovascular death in prostate cancer patients treated with hormonal therapy or bilateral orchiectomy, although some studies have shown no association between ADT and increased cardiovascular risk, according to a report that will appear in the Feb. 16 issue of &lt;em&gt;Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some evidence also suggests ADT may predispose men to metabolic syndrome.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Based on current data, it was appropriate to conclude that there may be a relationship between ADT therapy in patients with prostate cancer and future cardiovascular risk,&quot; Glenn N. Levine, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and chair of the advisory writing committee, said in a statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The writing committee comprised representatives of the American Heart Association, American Urological Association, and American Cancer Society. Additionally, the American Society for Radiation Oncology endorsed the advisory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors&apos; review of literature showed that ADT increased cardiovascular risk in 1% to 6% of various studies&apos; patient populations. With that in mind, &quot;the decision about whether to initiate ADT should be based on weighing the benefits of therapy with this potential modest risk,&quot; Levine said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The decision to initiate ADT should remain with the physician who has responsibility for treating a patient with prostate cancer, the authors wrote. That includes patients with known cardiac disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is the consensus of the writing group that there is no clear indication for patients for whom ADT is believed to be beneficial to be referred to internists, endocrinologists, or cardiologists for evaluation before initiation of ADT,&quot; the authors said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The decision as to whether or not to initiate ADT in patients with cardiac disease, in whom the benefits of therapy would be weighed against any possible risks, is most appropriately made by the physician treating the patient for prostate cancer.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the potential adverse metabolic effects warrant periodic evaluation by a patient&apos;s primary care physician, they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Noting a lack of clinical guidance for follow-up of patients treated with ADT, the advisory authors concluded that at least an annual assessment of blood glucose and lipids seems reasonable. They also called for prospective assessment of cardiovascular risk factors before and after ADT is begun in future clinical trials.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_336"
                     title="In Prostate CA, Sexual Decline After Radiation Has Limit (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.006"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ProstateCancer/tb/18214?impressionId=1265813198527"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Sexual function declines in the first two years after external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer but stabilizes thereafter, according to data from a prospective cohort study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All parameters of sexual function declined significantly (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&lt;0.05) in the first two years after external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), Richard Valicenti, MD, of the University of California Davis, and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But for years two through six of follow-up, none of the evaluated parameters of sexual function changed significantly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pretreatment sexual function was the strongest predictor of sexual function at any time after EBRT, the investigators reported in the January issue of the &lt;em&gt;International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Their findings debunk the perception that sexual function declines continually after radiation therapy for prostate cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The results of this study allow patients and their partners to have a fuller understanding of the long-term sexual side effects of EBRT, and what they can expect after treatment should aid in deciding on a treatment course,&quot; Valicenti said in a statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reported rates of impotency after EBRT for prostate cancer have ranged from 8% to 85%, a variation the authors attributed to the different instruments used to assess sexual function. Moreover, many studies included men who received androgen deprivation therapy in addition to EBRT, possibly masking the contributions of radiation therapy to changes in sexual function.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several recent studies have suggested that rates of sexual dysfunction increase with follow-up. However, few studies included pretreatment assessment of sexual function or conducted serial assessments of sexual function after EBRT, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To shed more light on the question, the investigators prospectively followed 143 men who completed a sexual function questionnaire prior to EBRT for prostate cancer and at each follow-up visit. The questionnaire assessed four domains of sexual function: sexual drive, erectile function, ejaculatory function, and overall satisfaction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The mean age of the patients was 69, median Gleason score was 6, and median total radiation dose was 73.8 Gy (range of 66.6 to 79.2 Gy).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During a median four-years of follow-up, the study participants completed a total of 1,187 questionnaires. Some patients were followed for as long as eight years after EBRT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Baseline scores for sexual drive and erectile function were significantly associated with patient age (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.003 and &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.004, respectively). Ejaculatory function was significantly associated with age, race, and marital status (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Scores on all four domains of sexual function, as well as the total score, declined significantly in the first two years after EBRT (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05) compared with baseline values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investigators grouped the patients according to baseline sexual function. Analysis of scores for patients above and below the median sexual function value showed that differences in sexual function persisted over time. Regression analysis showed that baseline score was the best predictor of later scores for all of the domains assessed (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A separate analysis of scores from years two through six showed no significant changes in any of the domains: sexual drive, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.067; erectile function, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.5; ejaculatory function, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.6; and overall satisfaction, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.44.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Baseline scores indicated that 74.1% of the study participants were sexually potent before EBRT. Among those who were potent before treatment, 74.4% remained potent at one year and 70.4% at two years after EBRT. The one- and two-year potency rates differed significantly from baseline, but the investigators found no statistically significant change in potency from years two through six.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Our data have indicated that the widely held opinion that sexual function has a slow, progressive decline after EBRT might be incorrect,&quot; the authors wrote in conclusion. &quot;Most sexual function decline in men undergoing EBRT for prostate cancer occurred in the first two years after treatment and all domains of sexual function, including erectile dysfunction, then appeared to stabilize.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no relevant disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_315"
                     title="A Few Extra Pounds May Benefit Older People (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18183?impressionId=1265813198527"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A little excess weight after age 70 could do the body some good, according to results of a study involving 9,000 older patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overweight participants in the cohort study had the lowest 10-year mortality. Normal-weight and obese participants ages 70 to 75 had a similar and slightly higher risk of death, Leon Flicker, PhD, of the Western Australian Center for Health and Aging in Perth, and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings add to evidence suggesting that being overweight in older age is not such a bad thing and might even be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These results lend further credence to claims that the body mass index [BMI] thresholds for overweight and obese are overly restrictive for older people,&quot; the researchers concluded in an article in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Geriatrics Society&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors also found that a sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for older women but did not affect survival of older men.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The World Health Organization has established four BMI thresholds to characterize body weight: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;lt;18.5 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, underweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;18.5 to 24.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, normal weight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;25 to 29.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, overweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;#8805;30 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, obese&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that the thresholds were derived primarily from studies of younger and middle-age adults. Whether the cut points for overweight and obese are appropriate for older individuals has remained unclear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis showed no increased mortality risk associated with a BMI in the overweight range for older people (&lt;em&gt;Arch Intern Med&lt;/em&gt; 2001; 161: 1194-1203, &lt;em&gt;Obesity Rev&lt;/em&gt; 2007; 8: 41-59). However, methodologic differences complicated the comparison of different studies, Flicker and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So they sought to address some of the uncertainty by analyzing data from two large Australian cohort studies involving more than 9,000 individuals ages 70 to 75 (4,677 men, 4,563 women).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The principal objectives were to determine the BMI threshold associated with the lowest mortality in older people and to determine whether the relationship between BMI and mortality differed between men and women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data for the analysis came from self-reported measures of height and weight, which the authors used to calculate BMI for the study participants. Participants also provided demographic, lifestyle, and health information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the WHO criteria for BMI, the authors found that 1.3% of men and 3.1% of women were underweight; 43.5% of men and 50.3% of women were normal weight; 44.3% of men and 33.5% of women were overweight; and 11% of men and 13.1% of women were obese.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During 10 years of follow-up, overweight study participants had a 13% lower risk of death compared with normal-weight participants (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94). Obese participants had a mortality risk similar to that of normal-weight participants (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Self-reported sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for women across all BMI categories (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.41). In contrast, sedentary lifestyle increased the mortality risk for men by 28% (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.44).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Separate analyses involving common causes of death, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, showed similar relationships between BMI and mortality risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Even after removing the effects of early mortality, those who were overweight were still at lowest risk, a finding consistent with the observation that weight loss in older age groups is associated with greater mortality,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overweight older people are not at greater mortality risk, and there is little evidence that dieting in this age group confers any benefit,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no relevant disclosures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>